Latest news
Exclusive Interview: Stronghold 3 with Simon Bradbury
by Chris Hawke
14.6.11

In real life, architects have their work cut out for them. How to craft a building that is beautiful, grand and elegant, whilst also keeping it functional and stable without laughing at the word 'buttress'? Well, forget all about that, because in the Stronghold series, you can make the most titanic, ludicrous and impregnable fortresses imaginable, without ever worrying about planning permission. We interviewed Simon Bradbury, designer on Stronghold 3, about the upcoming title.

One of the things, in my opinion, which helped the original Stronghold succeed was the careful blend of warmongering and city development. What is it like in this title?

Stronghold’s blend of different gameplay mechanics has always been unique, and it’s extremely important to us to keep it that way. Fans of the series
will be pleased to hear that the usual mix of building and sieging castles whilst growing apples, chopping wood and torturing the peasants, is definitely
present in Stronghold 3. We think the mix of gameplay styles really helps to
set Stronghold apart from some of the other strategy games out there. People
who prefer the military aspect can play through the military campaign again
and again, whereas those who prefer a slightly gentler pace can take on the
economic campaign or even just play at their own speed in the free build
mode.


Will we see a move abroad at any point, fighting in the holy lands again?

Some of the historical castles are based abroad, but there is no return to the
holy land for the time being. The story does, however, see the Wolf returning
from ten years recovering as the guest of the Caliph, to take his revenge on
those who defeated him in the first game, so you will come across some
familiar characters, or at least their descendants!


With the new destruction engine offering much more realistic damage, how
will castles be able to improve players' defences?

Just like previous Stronghold games, players will have a range of deadly traps at their fingertips to turn their castle defences into deadly killing machines - spike traps, caged dogs, burning logs, pits of burning tar, etc. But the new engine also allows us to do new and interesting things with the walls, for
example. Unlike the way previous games had several limitations placed on walls, we now have 'Bastions', protruding wall shapes that take much more of a pounding; or the much thinner 'curtain walls', cheaper walls that soldiers can’t walk
along but can be used to create extra defences that slow down the enemy,
giving you some precious extra seconds to get your soldiers ready.


You have noted that buildings will change as they move further from the
castle. Will this also effect their efficiency?

This chiefly applies to the houses but, yes, it greatly affects their efficiency
to provide much-needed extra bed space. Space near your keep is precious
because it’s normally the last place to be ransacked, so you’ve got to choose
wisely what you place near it. With that in mind, houses close to the keep
contain up to 10 peasants, whereas those in slums furthest away are basically
just a glorified shed that house just one person. Not only does this mean
players have to carefully manage their space but the different styles of houses
also help to give the villages a more random 'mediaeval' look. Other buildings
that need space near the Keep are all the honour-producing buildings - which
now just deliver directly to the keep itself - so become much less efficient the
further away you place them.


Will we see naval battles taking place at any point during the game?

No. Although many goods and people where often transported by sea to avoid
bandits, no big mediaeval battles took place upon the high seas. Stronghold is also all about castles and, to ensure we’re staying true to the period, we’re
keeping our feet firmly on the terra firma.


Can you give us an insight into the new map editor?

Yep; as usual, a map editor will be bundled with the game. The community’s
passion for creating their own maps has always been something we’ve been
extremely impressed by, and we wanted to give them something special this
time. The new editor is far more flexible and we can’t wait to see what they’ll
come up with, now that we’ve got a far more detailed engine. It allows you
to place buildings without the restrictions of grid-based placement, and castle
walls that can be graceful curves, rather than the straight lines of castle battlements in previous Strongholds. We’re also making it much easier to share maps in Stronghold 3, via our online service.


Will visible damage be limited to walls and towers, or will we see it in a
variety of places?

Visible damage applies to pretty much everything in the game, from the walls
of your castle to smaller buildings such as houses, and even siege equipment
like catapults. The inclusion of physics for the first time in the Stronghold
series really helps to make battles extremely dramatic, because you’re literally
watching your defences crumbling around you. There are even ragdoll
physics on the soldiers, so you’ll see them tumbling off towers when they get
an arrow through their throat.


Are you going to bring any gameplay mechanics from Stronghold
Kingdoms (the online version of Stronghold) over?

There are a couple of things that we think will work very well, and that we are
bringing over from Stronghold Kingdoms. Perhaps the biggest Kingdoms-related change is in the popularity system, which will be more static and controllable, like in Kingdoms. Even we continually kept getting caught out in the previous games by setting a high tax rate, for example, and then going to war, only to return to an empty castle. Frankly, it’s always been a weak point.

We're really pleased with the small but profound change we made in Kingdoms, where the popularity doesn’t swing wildly over time; it just reacts and reflects what is going on at the present moment. This gives you a much greater sense of control. Of course, we still mix things up, and we've beefed up the events system to provide changes to popularity that are out of your control. So if the King makes a surprise visit on the map, for example, you can probably put your taxes up for a spell while the peasants are befuddled by the presence of royalty!


Will the weather system also work as a game mechanic as well? For example, will
we see huge armies moving in the cover of night?

We have a weather system and a day/night cycle, and nighttime battles will
be a huge part of the game, particularly in the single player. One thing we’ve
never done in Stronghold is ‘fog of war’, but the night time effect is really our chance to do a realistic fog of war, because it’s literally too dark for you to see very far.

For example, you may start a level in the dead of night, with your advisor telling you that you must sneak towards your enemy’s castle before
dawn, when they will be able to see you. At key points - such as before dawn, for example - the time of day will change noticeably, so you’re always on your
toes to make sure that you beat the sunrise.

We think the nighttime battles really add a lot to the game, and we’re really looking forward to seeing what the community thinks to them. As for weather effects, these also play a key part in the new popularity system: sunny weather will actually make your peasants happier, whereas a storm with lightning and thunder makes them all miserable.


Will we see the return of the 'historical battles' mode, where you're able to
defend a castle from the enemy in a historical situation?

Yes, we’re planning to ship the game with a number of historical castles
based on researched castles from history, although I can’t reveal the exact
details just yet.


A huge thanks goes to Simon Bradbury, Rob Burman and everyone at Southpeak and Firefly Studios. Stick around for more interviews heading your way soon.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

- Chris Hawke
A completely chauvinistic look at the modern day RTS
by Andrew Whipple III
25.4.11

The real-time strategy (RTS) genre is a robust and well-celebrated brand, that has kept legions of PC gamers fascinated for millennia. And for good reason. It takes immense amounts of skill to perfectly control your vast armies in the midst of combat while simultaneously building up your economy, all without even batting an eye. To the wayward onlooker, these are madmen staring at a blinky screen with fingers moving in a celestial dance. However, all RTS games aren't played this way, and whilst many may think Blizzard's StarCraft and Warcraft series dominate the market (and they wouldn't be wrong), there are already games out there that play better.

Let's get this straight; there has never been a good console RTS that could even come close to rivalling its PC counterpart. Even if there's an exclusive RTS console-side, like Halo Wars, it's child's play to the likes of PC gaming. RTS games work best on the PC, and that's a fact.


The old-school modern day RTS


Mass siege tanks are your most hated enemy.

As I said, many associate the genre with StarCraft, and you definitely can't blame them. StarCraft pioneered the conceptualisation of a truly balanced, almost-perfect strategy game with a well written narrative and exuberant community behind it. The friggin' game is played as a sport in some countries. To put it simply, Blizzard's game was the role model for the genre, and in a lot of ways, it still is today. StarCraft II sold 1.5 million units in its first 48 hours. If that doesn't depict how popular the StarCraft name is, nothing else will.

In StarCraft, build order is the way of life. Supply: depot, barracks, SCV, vommunications array, etc. It needs to be done in a certain amount of time. If you go off course, or are too slow in your decision making, your enemy could already be in your base, and you'll have next to zero defenses to protect you. This is the kind of gameplay I've been leading up to that I've grown tired of. StarCraft isn't the only offender here; Command and Conquer is famous for the same problem as well and, if you go way back, Age of Empires too.


What a pain in the ass these things can be.

Micromanagement also plays a pivotal role in every encounter in the game. That's having the mastery over individual units of a squad or of a small group at all times. If you don't have control, you'll constantly be harassed by dudes who move just a tiny bit faster than you, or have just a hair longer range than your troops. This is stupid. It's one thing if some units are fast-moving, like the Zerg Mutalisk or Terran Banshee, but when a horde of Protoss Stalkers are moving toward you, then away, shoot you once, move away, shoot you once, and you can't even hit them a single damn time, it's beyond frustrating. Units don't move like that. I'm more of a 'position-and-dig-in-and-flank-your-foe' type of fighter, not an 'MMO-kite-because-I-can' guy.

Kiting is stupid.

I know what you're thinking. "All you need to do is scout their base, see where they're going and then counter". That is very true to StarCraft nature, but it isn't exactly enjoyable, and nor is it easy. In the beginning, you might throw a builder unit into your enemy's base to see what they're doing early on, but there are marked issues with that. Unless you have a vast knowledge of what that specific race's base should look like at that specific time slot, you have no idea what they're going to build. Moreover, you need to constantly send over stuff to observe what they have in order to be able to counter during the course of the game. This is also whilst you're building units, expanding, making defenses, and scouting around the map. To me, this translates as 'make some units, hope that whatever you're doing they don't have the counter to, make sure it shoots ground and air, they have the counter, you now can't fight back, game lost'.


New-school RTS solution


Everything I've described are, and always will be, the staples of the old-school RTS. However, when games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War II come along, it majorly opened our eyes to how much better something can be.

In Dawn of War II there are no Barracks or Supply Depots; you have nothing to continuously build to produce units, StarCraft style. As a matter of fact, resource gathering is a thing of the past. It might seem like resource-mongering is a requisite component of the genre, but its lack of presence in these games bestow the incredible gift of focus. Without having to worry about how many SCVs or Drones you have, you can focus all your attention on where your handful of troops are, along with their environmental advantages. This unparalleled attention grants the gift of imagination to the player; instead of mindless wandering, your squad can set up for some brilliant ambushes and other tactical manoeuvres.

Like its predecessor, Company of Heroes, both games give you control of a select group of soldiers that work in a team. While you can divide and conquer if the situation permits it, travelling in a group is always the better option because of each squad's tactical use and strengths. Want to blow up a bridge your enemy is using to transport troops? Do it, and reap the benefit of taking them by surprise. There isn't any bridge-exploding antics in StarCraft, no tactical ambushes, and certainly no sideways hits on bases. You know what there is? Flying right over an enemy base with Medivacs, and dropping all your troops right into the thick of it, while the anti-air guns fire at you.

Because that totally makes sense.

Dawn of War II and Company of Heroes also both utilise the cover mechanic. By positioning yourself in front of sandbags, broken pillars, or perhaps a mega-behemoth corpse, your troops are more protected from enemy fire. Also, won't see standard infantry firing bullets at tanks and hurting them. The only way to take those puppies down are with some well placed heavy weapon blasts, such as missiles or something akin. This type of play adds more to the already-considerable stratagem, and certainly makes for some interesting encounters.


Who needs shields when you have chainswords?

I think the reason why I enjoy these type of RTS games more than their old-school compatriots is the greater sense of team work, strategy, and combat. Everything lasts longer and takes more thought than what StarCraft brings to the table. Rather than always building something the same, Dawn of War II allows me to control a set number of troops that I can alter, position, and set up. I can't expect to send in a total mêlée squad and win the day in a tornado of blood. The key is being able to always have a fighting chance, no matter what appears on the battlefield.

Once again, I'll say it: StarCraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empires - they're all a lot of fun. However, when it comes down to competitive play and even casual style, I'd prefer the setup to occur with more accessible gameplay. Using common sense, movement, positioning, and setting up battle scenarios are much more enticing in Dawn of War and Company of Heroes than it ever could be in StarCraft. I think Relic's game design should be borrowed and tweaked more, so that the contemporary RTS can benefit in a whole new way.

What do you think? Prefer the old-school approach or Relic-style? Sound off in the comments section.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

- Andrew Whipple III
GGTL Classics
Some of the very best articles dug out from deep in the GGTL archives, written by some of our past and present wordsmiths alike.
Your continued use of this website and/or any others owned by Gamer's Guide to Life.com represents your acceptance and indicates your full understanding of all of our legal policies and terms. Our legal policies and terms are legally binding. If you in any way disagree with or refuse to be bound by any part of said legal policies and terms, you are advised to leave this website immediately.